Member's Off-site Blogs

biodiversity versus big bucks...

Why pay attention to the biodiversity of the planet?...

---------------------

2010 is the UN year of the biodiversity. But, apart from a few dedicated scientists and greenies who understand and try to value the problem of biodiversity's decline, the campaign for protection of ecosystems appears absent, uninspiring, dull and at times childish, especially to business men in suits driving economic road-graders for profits and for pocket money bonuses.

Even compared to the momentum of "climate change", presently in fierce battle-lines between red-neck deniers and serious science, biodiversity protection is more or less in limbo — possibly too complex of an idea or there are too many quick-buck factors against it, such as having no instant cash value in it... At least with global warming we think, or can argue against this proposition, it could really damage our standards of living should it be a reality. Thus the polemic is hot...

And let's be honest about the loss of a species such as the Tasmanian Tiger. It has had no negative impact whatsoever on the economy, except allow for more sheep to graze on the paddock without being killed... The way business would see it, less biodiversity, more streamlined cash-flow. Well, business does not really think that way — business does not think about much, biodiversity-care included, apart from cash incomes and outcomes — though sometimes business might see biodiversity as a mozzie that bugs from time to time.

When one drives a fifty tonnes tank, one does not see the bull-ants nest, unless one is bitten by one ant on the butt. And one could die from being bitten by too many mad bull-ants... But napalm can bring ant colonies and native plant species to their knees. That's power. That's taming the shrew!

Sure, "environmental impact study statements" are performed like eco-dances to minimise the damage to the image of destruction and to show that "we care", but eventually the koala colony disappears from proximity with "development" and the following pronouncement can then be made "the koalas were on their way out of there anyway... see we did everything to "protect" them... but they went...".

Economic factors and scientific measurements tend to clash. When the protection of something means stopping destruction-for-profit, we're in for one usual outcome: flat earth first... and this is not a theory.

There is always a lag-time between our realisation of the decline of biodiversity, the quick political and economic fixes to murder it in the name of human progress and what we can do to protect it. While destruction of habitat is rife, and at speed, organisations for the protection of biodiversity are slow to convert talks and conferences, into concrete actions. There is a bit of a look of windmills about them.

One has to say, here, the subtle benefit of nature's integrity has been undervalued for yonks and rarely accounted for in economic development (apart from a bit of vicarious tourism — and there is always a price to pay for this, such as over-invaded spaces that require "infrastructures" to channel the crowds and provide pee-houses) while the negative returns of deforestation and pollution are never or rarely accounted for, because for every average tree that fall, one can make ten tables, two thousand newspapers, one million toilet rolls and 20 billion match-sticks. Sure, there are more "ecological impact studies" produced, but these are often like a green coat of paint to disguise the up-coming black ugly damage underneath.

It will be mostly the poor that will suffer most and the future generations that will miss what has been lost, or will they?...

And in some instance of caring while being "economically viable", we create other problems too, such as planting "native" species, for loo paper, in forest rows that need insecticides to stop vague infestation, this leading to the degradation of waterways from "natural" species concentrated toxins, apart from the chemicals... One knows in this country for example that Eucalyptus oil can be lethally toxic, no?... But in reality these plantation trees are NOT NATIVES. Sure, they come from the same continent but from different regions. They are not endemic.

---------------

In regard to the exploitation of this planet, we carry-on of course with outmoded taxation system, based on availability of resources as if there was no limits, no decline — we reward with subsidies intensive farming and even over-fishing. Doing so, we cannot arrest the destruction of ecosystems, leading to a faster decline of biodiversity, as we have noticed...

Some sceptics are already onto me like a tonne of bricks. "Hey, we've discovered at least 5,000 new species in the oceans! don't tell us about the decline!". Idiots! These species are not new. It's just we did not know they were there! You moron! They have nothing to do with the decline of biodiversity... All it has to do is with the sum of our knowledge — and we know little... but we KNOW FOR SURE species are disappearing and many more are in danger of disappearing BECAUSE OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES... Idiots!.

Apparently, protecting biodiversity can lead to business opportunities — from eco-tourism to pharmaceuticals, from medicine to the provision of fresh air... But to me, there is first the ultimate intrinsic value of biodiversity — IT'S THERE — apart from the value to humankind, a value inherent to itself, in which should we choose to, we can admire the inherent beauty of accidental change or the amazing natural and environmental adaptation. In fact, unlike climate change that can (will) have a serious impact on economic comforts, the value of biodiversity in real terms is small. Sure, there can be some problems such as a swamp becoming smellier due to the death of life in it, but not as serious as a super-storm devastating a city or a village...

Nonetheless, there are moves by European nations to stop trading with countries whose products are the resultant of the degradation of natural ecosystems (say palm oil). Congratulation on behalf of my friends — the sub-species.

Thus in the spirit of biodiversity and protection of ecosystems, I'd like to salute 80 per cent of Frank Sartor who saw fit to protect 80 per cent of the river red gums and help loggers train in other professions. As long as. in the future, no new minister decides again in an environmental move to "save" 80 per cent of what's left... This, of course, would leave only 64 per cent of the original red gums... Then could come another minister in search of green glory and in a generous eco-mood deciding to "save" 80 per cent of what's left, leaving us with only half of the original stand... This has been the clever way by which much of the destruction of eco-systems is done, by political compromises. Bit by bit, "saving the rest for the future" till another minister comes along and take another bite out of it, grand-standing in the act of saving the rest... Gus has seen that before...

The council's general manager, Graeme Haley, says national parks will not necessarily save wetlands which are suffering from a lack of water.

"My initial reaction is extreme disappointment. We're replacing a $70 million per annum industry with a national park and a support package of up to $80 million over three years. The finances don't make any sense," he said.

Mr Haley says the evidence suggests the decision could do more to hinder the local tourism industry than help it.

"I think it'll have an adverse effect on all of the southern Riverina. The Government has mentioned a number of times how tourism will be the saviour in these national parks," he said.

"We are yet to see that in the national park they've just created about four five years ago in Balranald. If anything it'll reduce tourism."

'Appalled'The Riverina timber industry is disappointed with the decision.

The executive director of the New South Wales Forest Products Association, Russ Ainely, says more than 500 people will lose their jobs.

"Well everybody I've spoken to is appalled by this decision and this assistance that's to be provided to the mills and the industries that operates there is about half of what was offered to the Brigalow mills over five years ago," he said.

Mr Ainley says very little of the $80 million support package will go to those who are directly affected.

"Most of that will disappear into all sorts of national parks funding and exercises there, as far as supporting the industries and the people that are affected, I suppose I could best describe it as miserable," he said.

'Gutted'In contrast, the National Parks Association (NPA) has criticised the Government decision, especially the plan to allow logging to continue in internationally significant wetlands.

Spokeswoman Carmel Flint says she is stunned that logging will continue in the Millewa Forest for at least another five years.

----------------

We need to wake up and we need to save the planet from ourselves, not for ourselves.... not interfering with biodiversity is a stylistic and generous must.

The International Year of Biodiversity is built on celebrating and communicating the examples of communities, governments and organizations that have been able to achieve the 2010 Biodiversity Target at different levels. Their stories will themselves become messages and models for future policy and action. They will be presented in a way that highlights their economic contribution to the lives of communities. The particularly important role of Indigenous and Local Communities will also be highlighted. Other examples of “2010 Success Stories” will be the work of the scientific community; the latest developments in biodiversity science.

Welcome to the “Success Stories” clearing-house. This is where communities and organizations and partners advertise their stories and demonstrate how these will help us all work to achieve the goals of a broader vision for safeguarding biodiversity in the decades to come.

We invite you to share YOUR “Success Stories” with the rest of the world! Tell us your story, and give us the following details by email:

the name of your story

where it takes place (country and city or region)

a brief description (200 words) of what was achieved and the lessons learned

a link to your website

a copy of any documents you think would help people to understand your work

-----------------------

And while a stick-insect is saved in a garden by a gnome, an entirely unknown species of slow-moving banksia is being napalmed to the shouts of "BANZAI!" by governments and "green"-lighted businesses... Er, you know what I mean....

This week, I want to dust off my crystal ball and make a prediction: in the future, the biggest land animals will be smaller than they are now.

Here’s why I think so. As a rule of thumb, larger animals need more food than smaller animals; they also need more space. Obviously, it takes more land to grow 100 rhinoceroses than it does to grow 100 rabbits. One hundred tigers require more land than 100 foxes. Indeed, meat-eaters, being higher in the food chain, need even more space than plant-eaters. For land mammals, every kilogram of prey supports just 9 grams of carnivore. So to feed one tiger of 180 kilos, you need 20 tonnes of prey. To support a breeding population of tigers, you need rather more. (For non-metric types, 2.2 pounds of prey feeds one third of an ounce of carnivore; a tiger weighs about 400 pounds and needs 22 tons of prey.)

Which has the following consequences. On islands, there’s a relationship between the size of the island and the size of the largest animals that live there. Enormous animals don’t live on tiny, or even medium-sized islands — they can’t. Moreover, an island of a given size will be home to more large herbivores than large carnivores.

When we break up rainforests or steppes, or build roads through pristine landscapes, we start to fray the fabric of nature.

----------------------------

Gus: when for example a minister "saves" 80 per cent of a forest say, it can be done in a way in which "only 20 per cent" stays pristine. I can demonstrate this with graphs and charts but trust me, it can be done. see toon at top and comment below it...

With my own crystal ball I can predict that, the way we are dealing with nature, many species, big and small, will disappear... while some will run riot, like rabbits, humans and cockroaches — all getting more and resilient to stronger diseases, insecticides, humanicide (killers of the human nature — such as violent video games) — and all getting fatter but degenerated though, especially the